"Gordon Couger" wrote:
Like most of the detractors of modern framing you have no practical
experience faming. I have been at this 46 years and watch crops lost to

Agriculture scientist know what their doing and they learn from the past. I
have oral history of family farming back to 1816. My grand father told me

There is no one in the world who has 46 years of experience with
genetic engineering. The wisdom distilled from multiple generations
of your forefathers does not exist for GE biotech.

But all you do is spout the same tired dogma of the
ludilits that are starving people to death in India and Africa. Dream about
them tonight. I have done every thing I can to provide food for the world

May the ghosts of the millions that have died and will die haunt you for
your disregard of the world situation that has cause the break down in the
fight against disease in the third world and now you want to deny them the
benefits of modern agriculture as well.

Of course there are lots of people with good intentions including
both farmers and biotech employees.
The problem is that good intentions are not enough.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
We have to have respect for Nature's ways and real-world consequences,
and our ignorance of both of these.

For example, genetically engineered constructs are unstable - the
artificial mechanisms that enable foreign genes to be inserted also enable
them to jump out and re-insert somewhere else, resulting in unpredictable
recombinations. The realization is dawning that if genetically engineered
crops are planted on a large scale and contaminate large amounts of non-gmo
crops before the cascading instabilities end in a genetic implosion, the
result could be the largest famine in history.
Go to http://www.i-sis.org.uk/meltdown.php
and http://www.i-sis.org.uk/unstable.php for explanation and references.

It's a bit arrogant to presume we know more about how to grow things
in africa than africans do.
I heard from a ugandan who works on agriculture issues who said
when they were given seeds by the west during a drought, many of them
did not even sprout, so they learned the next time around to say thank
you, eat the western seeds, and plant their indigenous ones which are
adapted to local conditions and do sprout.

--
delete N0SPAAM to reply by email

"Walter Epp" wrote in message
...
"Gordon Couger" wrote:
For example, genetically engineered constructs are unstable - the
artificial mechanisms that enable foreign genes to be inserted also enable
them to jump out and re-insert somewhere else, resulting in unpredictable
recombinations. The realization is dawning that if genetically engineered
crops are planted on a large scale and contaminate large amounts of
non-gmo
crops before the cascading instabilities end in a genetic implosion, the
result could be the largest famine in history.
Go to http://www.i-sis.org.uk/meltdown.php
and http://www.i-sis.org.uk/unstable.php for explanation and references.

Bull shit

It's a bit arrogant to presume we know more about how to grow things
in africa than africans do.
I heard from a ugandan who works on agriculture issues who said
when they were given seeds by the west during a drought, many of them
did not even sprout, so they learned the next time around to say thank
you, eat the western seeds, and plant their indigenous ones which are
adapted to local conditions and do sprout.

South Africans sure like BT cotton.

Gordon

Addressing just a few of the points..... see inline

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 20:42:48 -0700, Walter Epp
wrote:

There is no one in the world who has 46 years of experience with
genetic engineering. The wisdom distilled from multiple generations
of your forefathers does not exist for GE biotech.

Genetic manipulation has been going on for milliennia.
Agriculturalists since the beginning of recorded history have
genetically modified crops. Of course the main methods have been
selection, (which removes genes from the gene pool) but other methods
such as treating seeds with caustic materials, heat, cold and partial
fermentation have all been used. So has cross-fertilisation, both
intra and cross species.

The result is that many crop plants are multiploid, and sterile, and
open to any naturally occurred disease mutation that comes along.
Bananas may be extinct in a few years. A mutant disease could wipe all
the crop plants in a season. Most crop plants *only* survive because
of man's intervention and huge amounts of chemicals.

For example, genetically engineered constructs are unstable - the
artificial mechanisms that enable foreign genes to be inserted also enable
them to jump out and re-insert somewhere else, resulting in unpredictable
recombinations. The realization is dawning that if genetically engineered
crops are planted on a large scale and contaminate large amounts of non-gmo
crops before the cascading instabilities end in a genetic implosion, the
result could be the largest famine in history.

See above. The way that we conduct agriculture is unbelievably
dangerous. And that's got nothing to do with current genetic
engineering.

The fact that GE organisms are fragile is good. They will not stand
against the "natural" organisms that contend against them. Look
someday at the huge numbers of wild Brassicas by our roadsides. They
are nothing more than the descendents of cultivated Brassicas that
have escaped and reverted to type. There is no trace of the cultivars
in the feral plants.

The same would happen to GE organisms. They are *fragile* and would
soon get absorbed by the more robust wild varieties.

It's silly to believe that in a few years we could produce plants
which are more robust than those produced over millions of years of
evolution.

Cheers,

Cliff
--

Signed and sealed with Great Seal of the Executive
Council of the Internet, by The Master of The Net.

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 20:42:48 -0700, Walter Epp
posted:

"Gordon Couger" wrote:
Like most of the detractors of modern framing you have no practical
experience faming. I have been at this 46 years and watch crops lost to

Agriculture scientist know what their doing and they learn from the past. I
have oral history of family farming back to 1816. My grand father told me

There is no one in the world who has 46 years of experience with
genetic engineering. The wisdom distilled from multiple generations
of your forefathers does not exist for GE biotech.

And the difference, in the broad scheme of things?

But all you do is spout the same tired dogma of the
ludilits that are starving people to death in India and Africa. Dream about
them tonight. I have done every thing I can to provide food for the world

May the ghosts of the millions that have died and will die haunt you for
your disregard of the world situation that has cause the break down in the
fight against disease in the third world and now you want to deny them the
benefits of modern agriculture as well.

Of course there are lots of people with good intentions including
both farmers and biotech employees.
The problem is that good intentions are not enough.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
We have to have respect for Nature's ways

Capitalisation noted.

and real-world consequences,

Which are?

and our ignorance of both of these.

But nothing in our extensive knowledge base to indicate any problem?

For example, genetically engineered constructs are unstable -

Just like many mutations. So what? That's good, isn't it?

the
artificial mechanisms that enable foreign genes

What's a "foreign gene"?

to be inserted also enable
them to jump out and re-insert somewhere else, resulting in unpredictable
recombinations. The realization is dawning that if genetically engineered
crops are planted on a large scale and contaminate large amounts of non-gmo
crops before the cascading instabilities end in a genetic implosion, the
result could be the largest famine in history.
Go to http://www.i-sis.org.uk/meltdown.php
and http://www.i-sis.org.uk/unstable.php for explanation and references.

Another propaganda group?

It's a bit arrogant to presume we know more about how to grow things
in africa than africans do.

Why? We each know more about some things than about other things.

I heard from a ugandan who works on agriculture issues who said
when they were given seeds by the west during a drought, many of them
did not even sprout, so they learned the next time around to say thank
you, eat the western seeds, and plant their indigenous ones which are
adapted to local conditions and do sprout.

Have you got a link to this urban myth?

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 20:42:48 -0700, Walter Epp
posted:

"Gordon Couger" wrote:
Like most of the detractors of modern framing you have no practical
experience faming. I have been at this 46 years and watch crops lost to

Agriculture scientist know what their doing and they learn from the
past. I
have oral history of family farming back to 1816. My grand father told
me

There is no one in the world who has 46 years of experience with
genetic engineering. The wisdom distilled from multiple generations
of your forefathers does not exist for GE biotech.

And the difference, in the broad scheme of things?

But all you do is spout the same tired dogma of the
ludilits that are starving people to death in India and Africa. Dream
about
them tonight. I have done every thing I can to provide food for the
world

May the ghosts of the millions that have died and will die haunt you for
your disregard of the world situation that has cause the break down in
the
fight against disease in the third world and now you want to deny them
the
benefits of modern agriculture as well.

Of course there are lots of people with good intentions including
both farmers and biotech employees.
The problem is that good intentions are not enough.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
We have to have respect for Nature's ways
and real-world consequences,

The methods you support would result in massive starvation and every
possible square inch of land being stripped trying to raise more food.

You parrot the dogma of those that use the ignoance of well meaning people
to line their pockets and further their political agenda. See how much money
the people that you base your beliefs on contribute to agriclute, aid or
research.

Gordon

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 20:42:48 -0700, Walter Epp
posted:

"Gordon Couger" wrote:
Like most of the detractors of modern framing you have no practical
experience faming. I have been at this 46 years and watch crops lost to

Agriculture scientist know what their doing and they learn from the
past. I
have oral history of family farming back to 1816. My grand father told
me

There is no one in the world who has 46 years of experience with
genetic engineering. The wisdom distilled from multiple generations
of your forefathers does not exist for GE biotech.

And the difference, in the broad scheme of things?

But all you do is spout the same tired dogma of the
ludilits that are starving people to death in India and Africa. Dream
about
them tonight. I have done every thing I can to provide food for the
world

May the ghosts of the millions that have died and will die haunt you for
your disregard of the world situation that has cause the break down in
the
fight against disease in the third world and now you want to deny them
the
benefits of modern agriculture as well.

Of course there are lots of people with good intentions including
both farmers and biotech employees.
The problem is that good intentions are not enough.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
We have to have respect for Nature's ways
and real-world consequences,

The methods you support would result in massive starvation and every
possible square inch of land being stripped trying to raise more food.

You parrot the dogma of those that use the ignoance of well meaning people
to line their pockets and further their political agenda. See how much money
the people that you base your beliefs on contribute to agriclute, aid or
research.

Gordon

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 20:42:48 -0700, Walter Epp
posted:

"Gordon Couger" wrote:
Like most of the detractors of modern framing you have no practical
experience faming. I have been at this 46 years and watch crops lost to

Agriculture scientist know what their doing and they learn from the
past. I
have oral history of family farming back to 1816. My grand father told
me

There is no one in the world who has 46 years of experience with
genetic engineering. The wisdom distilled from multiple generations
of your forefathers does not exist for GE biotech.

And the difference, in the broad scheme of things?

But all you do is spout the same tired dogma of the
ludilits that are starving people to death in India and Africa. Dream
about
them tonight. I have done every thing I can to provide food for the
world

May the ghosts of the millions that have died and will die haunt you for
your disregard of the world situation that has cause the break down in
the
fight against disease in the third world and now you want to deny them
the
benefits of modern agriculture as well.

Of course there are lots of people with good intentions including
both farmers and biotech employees.
The problem is that good intentions are not enough.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
We have to have respect for Nature's ways
and real-world consequences,

The methods you support would result in massive starvation and every
possible square inch of land being stripped trying to raise more food.

You parrot the dogma of those that use the ignoance of well meaning people
to line their pockets and further their political agenda. See how much money
the people that you base your beliefs on contribute to agriclute, aid or
research.

Gordon

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
...


On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 20:42:48 -0700, Walter Epp
posted:

"Gordon Couger" wrote:
Like most of the detractors of modern framing you have no practical
experience faming. I have been at this 46 years and watch crops lost
to

Agriculture scientist know what their doing and they learn from the
past. I
have oral history of family farming back to 1816. My grand father told
me

There is no one in the world who has 46 years of experience with
genetic engineering. The wisdom distilled from multiple generations
of your forefathers does not exist for GE biotech.

And the difference, in the broad scheme of things?

But all you do is spout the same tired dogma of the
ludilits that are starving people to death in India and Africa. Dream
about
them tonight. I have done every thing I can to provide food for the
world

May the ghosts of the millions that have died and will die haunt you
for
your disregard of the world situation that has cause the break down in
the
fight against disease in the third world and now you want to deny them
the
benefits of modern agriculture as well.

Of course there are lots of people with good intentions including
both farmers and biotech employees.
The problem is that good intentions are not enough.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
We have to have respect for Nature's ways
and real-world consequences,

The methods you support would result in massive starvation and every
possible square inch of land being stripped trying to raise more food.

You parrot the dogma of those that use the ignoance of well meaning people
to line their pockets and further their political agenda. See how much
money
the people that you base your beliefs on contribute to agriclute, aid or
research.

Gordon


The folks I, or those associated with our projects, deal with generally ask
for water, transportation and equipment and in about that order. This is
pertaining to food as we know that medical assistance is of high priority
also.

Seldom if ever do we get requests for seeds except to borrow or buy from a
nearby group of the same culture.

The increasing millions spent on experimenting is almost proportional to the
increasing hunger in the world.

This dilemma is not to be resolved by our huge corporations but by you and
I.

James Curts

"James Curts" wrote in message
news:Vlb%a.151928$YN5.100000@sccrnsc01...

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
...


On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 20:42:48 -0700, Walter Epp
posted:

"Gordon Couger" wrote:
Like most of the detractors of modern framing you have no practical
experience faming. I have been at this 46 years and watch crops lost
to

Agriculture scientist know what their doing and they learn from the
past. I
have oral history of family farming back to 1816. My grand father
told
me

There is no one in the world who has 46 years of experience with
genetic engineering. The wisdom distilled from multiple generations
of your forefathers does not exist for GE biotech.

And the difference, in the broad scheme of things?

But all you do is spout the same tired dogma of the
ludilits that are starving people to death in India and Africa.
Dream
about
them tonight. I have done every thing I can to provide food for the
world

May the ghosts of the millions that have died and will die haunt you
for
your disregard of the world situation that has cause the break down
in
the
fight against disease in the third world and now you want to deny
them
the
benefits of modern agriculture as well.

Of course there are lots of people with good intentions including
both farmers and biotech employees.
The problem is that good intentions are not enough.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
We have to have respect for Nature's ways
and real-world consequences,

The methods you support would result in massive starvation and every
possible square inch of land being stripped trying to raise more food.

You parrot the dogma of those that use the ignoance of well meaning
people
to line their pockets and further their political agenda. See how much
money
the people that you base your beliefs on contribute to agriclute, aid or
research.

Gordon


The folks I, or those associated with our projects, deal with generally
ask
for water, transportation and equipment and in about that order. This is
pertaining to food as we know that medical assistance is of high priority
also.

Seldom if ever do we get requests for seeds except to borrow or buy from a
nearby group of the same culture.

The increasing millions spent on experimenting is almost proportional to
the
increasing hunger in the world.

This dilemma is not to be resolved by our huge corporations but by you and
I

Water in musch of the world is the limiting resorce and more irrigation will
produce more crops. But here are very few acres than can be irrigated with
conventional crops. The GM salt resistant ones could greatly increse the
amount of irrgated land.

Infra structure is expensive and takes time and in some cases education.

A seed company has no control or expertise in any of these things They can
produce seeds and chemicals.

Infrastructure and irrigation are idly suited to countries with lower levels
of technology and the NGO sector. They are not problems of sconce. Green
Piece could build some roads and buy some truck if they really wanted to
help these countries they claim to want to protect.

GM seeds can be develop in a short time and take no state expenditures and
can be targeted to the needs of the farmer no some planer that that is the
presidents brother in law.

They are by no means the total answered to the problem but they are a large
piece. The reduction of pesticide, erosion and nutrient transfer are
extremely voluble to the farmer, the environment and the world as whole. The
big corporations would not be doing it if the state funded seed breeds had
been funded and given a free hand in the matter but they ran into the same
political correct carp at their institutions and went to work in an
environment that appreciated their work and played them well for it.

Don't blame business for picking up on a valuable process that the pubic
funded research were not moving forward.

If you are concerned about big business direct you gaze and Nestle, Dunavant
Cotton Co. and the other privately held ag merchants that make Monsanto look
like the corner grocery store. Many of their higher ups can't set foot in
the US with out being served with a subpoena for anti trust violations.

Gordon

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: Genetic engineering reduces development time.

This misunderstanding is based on the assumption that the seed
developer has achieved the goal as soon as they know the gene and can
deliver it into the plant, where as conventional breeding can take
generations to achieve a goal because of the need to eliminate
undesirable traits.

Fact: After fifteen years of research and development
experience, it has become apparent that genetic modification can
increase development time. The necessary laboratory work is
complementary to, not a substitute for field breeding work.
The actual plant breeding work in genetically modified
varieties is the same as for conventional varieties, but
before this breeding work can start, there is the need for
extensive molecular development.

It is generally more expensive to develop genetically
modified varieties and bring them to market than
conventional varieties, because of the additional research
and development work, and additional regulatory
requirements.

Gordon Couger wrote:

They are by no means the total answered to the problem but they are a large
piece. The reduction of pesticide,

inkname: GMO
URL:
http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/sa...O12092002.html
[...]

Increased use of herbicides: Contrary to claims from the
biotechnology industry, farmers are now more reliant on herbicides
(weedkillers). Certain crops have been engineered to be resistant to
specific herbicides to enable farmers to spray weeds without damaging
crops. Although it was claimed that only one application would be
needed per crop, several are being made. In addition, weeds are
developing resistance to these herbicides, and rogue GM plants that
grow after a harvest (volunteers) have appeared and spread widely. In
particular, GM oilseed rape volunteers- the GM crop most likely to be
introduced in the UK - have spread quickly, and some plants have
become resistant to several herbicides through cross pollination. As a
result, farmers are making more frequent applications and reverting to
older and more toxic chemicals.

[...]

erosion and nutrient transfer are
extremely voluble to the farmer, the environment and the world as whole.

Here in New Zealand we do not have commercial genetically modified crops. But
we do have no-tillage.

`Living Here' August 2003: (In Christchurch letterboxes today.)

`No tillage is a method of directly sowing new crop or grass seeds into
paddocks without ploughing or cultivating the soil. Thosae using this method
say it uses less msachinery and cuts fuel, time and machinery costs by up to
70%.'

`The no-tillage method sees Simon leaving harvest residues on the ground,
which improves the soil's organic composition and structure.
"Because of our soil's high organic matter, it has better water holding
capacity than soil under a culitivated system."
Simon irrigates less than many of his cultivating neighbourts, but still
retains good soil moisture levels. Moist soil is less likely to be picked up
by the wind, he says.'


The
big corporations would not be doing it if the state funded seed breeds had
been funded and given a free hand in the matter but they ran into the same
political correct carp at their institutions and went to work in an
environment that appreciated their work and played them well for it.

Don't blame business for picking up on a valuable process that the pubic
funded research were not moving forward.

It's a liability and now animaqls won't eat the stuff they are trying to
recoup something by palming it off on poor countries.

If you are concerned about big business direct you gaze and Nestle,

Nestle gone GE free, I understand.

Dunavant
Cotton Co. and the other privately held ag merchants that make Monsanto look
like the corner grocery store. Many of their higher ups can't set foot in
the US with out being served with a subpoena for anti trust violations.

Nestle did push milk powder instead of breast feeding, resulting in much
suffering from lack of clean water and also less natural immunity from
mother's milk.

Torsten Brinch wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: Genetic engineering reduces development time.

This misunderstanding is based on the assumption that the seed
developer has achieved the goal as soon as they know the gene and can
deliver it into the plant, where as conventional breeding can take
generations to achieve a goal because of the need to eliminate
undesirable traits.

Fact: After fifteen years of research and development
experience, it has become apparent that genetic modification can
increase development time. The necessary laboratory work is
complementary to, not a substitute for field breeding work.
The actual plant breeding work in genetically modified
varieties is the same as for conventional varieties, but
before this breeding work can start, there is the need for
extensive molecular development.

It is generally more expensive to develop genetically
modified varieties and bring them to market than
conventional varieties, because of the additional research
and development work, and additional regulatory
requirements.

And they cheat by trapsing them from northern to southern hemisphere
and back every 6 months to get two summer growing seasons per year
to build stocks. That is done under the guise of `field testing'.

A small company takes the profits and the public the risks.

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:32:40 +0200, Torsten Brinch
posted:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: Genetic engineering reduces development time.

This misunderstanding is based on the assumption that the seed
developer has achieved the goal as soon as they know the gene and can
deliver it into the plant, where as conventional breeding can take
generations to achieve a goal because of the need to eliminate
undesirable traits.

So can yo give us an example of a trait that was brought about quickly
by conventional breading, and a similar trait that was delayed by GM?

Fact: After fifteen years of research and development
experience, it has become apparent that genetic modification can
increase development time.

Development time of what? Have two identical traits been developed by
conventional and GM techniques so this comparison that you claim can
be made?

The necessary laboratory work is
complementary to, not a substitute for field breeding work.
The actual plant breeding work in genetically modified
varieties is the same as for conventional varieties, but
before this breeding work can start, there is the need for
extensive molecular development.

It is generally more expensive to develop genetically
modified varieties and bring them to market than
conventional varieties, because of the additional research
and development work, and additional regulatory
requirements.

But this has little to do with speed -- your original claim.

On 17 Aug 2003 10:33:10 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Gordon Couger wrote:

They are by no means the total answered to the problem but they are a large
piece. The reduction of pesticide,

inkname: GMO
URL:
http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/sa...O12092002.html


I've heard more lies from these crooks than.....

[...]

Increased use of herbicides: Contrary to claims from the
biotechnology industry, farmers are now more reliant on herbicides
(weedkillers). Certain crops have been engineered to be resistant to
specific herbicides to enable farmers to spray weeds without damaging
crops. Although it was claimed that only one application would be
needed per crop, several are being made. In addition, weeds are
developing resistance to these herbicides, and rogue GM plants that
grow after a harvest (volunteers) have appeared and spread widely. In
particular, GM oilseed rape volunteers- the GM crop most likely to be
introduced in the UK - have spread quickly, and some plants have
become resistant to several herbicides through cross pollination. As a
result, farmers are making more frequent applications and reverting to
older and more toxic chemicals.

[...]

erosion and nutrient transfer are
extremely voluble to the farmer, the environment and the world as whole.

Here in New Zealand we do not have commercial genetically modified crops. But
we do have no-tillage.

And?
No till just needs glyphosate, or similar. Tilling is for pre-sowing
weed control. It damages the soil so it's best not to do it. Use much
less harmful chemicals.

`Living Here' August 2003: (In Christchurch letterboxes today.)

`No tillage is a method of directly sowing new crop or grass seeds into
paddocks without ploughing or cultivating the soil. Thosae using this method
say it uses less msachinery and cuts fuel, time and machinery costs by up to
70%.'

And far less damage to the soil. Needs a herbicide.

`The no-tillage method sees Simon leaving harvest residues on the ground,
which improves the soil's organic composition and structure.
"Because of our soil's high organic matter, it has better water holding
capacity than soil under a culitivated system."
Simon irrigates less than many of his cultivating neighbourts, but still
retains good soil moisture levels. Moist soil is less likely to be picked up
by the wind, he says.'

Spot on. Glyphosate is the secret. Why did you think GM had anything
to do with it? Just because of the connection with the hated Monsanto?
Or because the lying soilassociation told you so?

The
big corporations would not be doing it if the state funded seed breeds had
been funded and given a free hand in the matter but they ran into the same
political correct carp at their institutions and went to work in an
environment that appreciated their work and played them well for it.

Don't blame business for picking up on a valuable process that the pubic
funded research were not moving forward.

It's a liability and now animaqls won't eat the stuff they are trying to
recoup something by palming it off on poor countries.

Bullshit!!!

If you are concerned about big business direct you gaze and Nestle,

Nestle gone GE free, I understand.

A sound marketing plan coz of all the lying greenie scare campaigns
about. Nothing to do with science, or the truth.

Dunavant
Cotton Co. and the other privately held ag merchants that make Monsanto look
like the corner grocery store. Many of their higher ups can't set foot in
the US with out being served with a subpoena for anti trust violations.

Nestle did push milk powder instead of breast feeding, resulting in much
suffering from lack of clean water and also less natural immunity from
mother's milk.

This is where regulation needs to curb the activities of corporations
in a market situation. A free market always results in the weak being
exploited by the strong. Otherwise, it ain't free.

On 17 Aug 2003 11:20:51 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Torsten Brinch wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:00:11 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:
GM seeds can be develop in a short time

Myth: Genetic engineering reduces development time.

This misunderstanding is based on the assumption that the seed
developer has achieved the goal as soon as they know the gene and can
deliver it into the plant, where as conventional breeding can take
generations to achieve a goal because of the need to eliminate
undesirable traits.

Fact: After fifteen years of research and development
experience, it has become apparent that genetic modification can
increase development time. The necessary laboratory work is
complementary to, not a substitute for field breeding work.
The actual plant breeding work in genetically modified
varieties is the same as for conventional varieties, but
before this breeding work can start, there is the need for
extensive molecular development.

It is generally more expensive to develop genetically
modified varieties and bring them to market than
conventional varieties, because of the additional research
and development work, and additional regulatory
requirements.

And they cheat by trapsing them from northern to southern hemisphere
and back every 6 months to get two summer growing seasons per year
to build stocks. That is done under the guise of `field testing'.

A small company takes the profits and the public the risks.

Please give an example of company profits derived from a product that
the market doesn't want.